However, ballot initiatives specifically call upon the electorate to exercise direct democracy......otherwise such initiatives are pointless.

Yes, but still subject to rulings on Constitutionality by the courts as are laws (as schandler pointed out) such as a health care mandate.

In Colorado, we actually passed a referendum by popular vote back in the 90's that allowed discrimination based on sexual preference. This was because the electorate was convinced that if the referendum did not pass, gays would be allowed status as a minority group. As you might guess, a fairly conservative State Supreme Court ruled the law unconstitutional.

As Dan pointed out, that is why our system of checks and balances helps maintain the level of rights we enjoy.

However, ballot initiatives specifically call upon the electorate to exercise direct democracy......otherwise such initiatives are pointless.

Not true. Direct democracy lacks constitutional jurisprudence. As such, our republic retains a check on any form of legislation, no matter the initiating source. Again, separation of powers. For example, even a successful ballot initiative declaring a state religion would be rendered unenforceable by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Majority view simply cannot be accepted as sufficient for all forms of legislation. Thankfully, our governments in America are structured to prevent mob rule._________________Support Your Sport. Join US Windsurfing!
www.USWindsurfing.org

I'm not sure how much support you will receive for the proposition that ballot initiatives are not direct democracy. That is precisely what they are. Through ballot initiatives the electorate can directly change or create a law at a local or state level rather than relying on their elected representatives to do so. I do not regard that orderly and direct expression of the will of the people to be "mob rule". Of course any such measures are subject to Constitutional scrutiny, just as are those passed by Congress at a state or federal level. However, as has been stated previously, that scrutiny is a narrow one.....restricted to compliance with the words and intent of the Constitution, and should not be tainted by the personal predilections of the unelected officials charged with performing that review.

California has zillions of ballot initiatives, many of which are voted on at various times , not in November. It is a joke. Many of the initiatives are issues that should just be handled by the many people that were democratically elected. Electing someone is one thing, making policy decisions sitting in front of Fox News drinking a case of Busch is another.

I do not share the contempt that you and others on the left of this forum have expressed for the electorate. I see much more common sense present in ordinary voters than I do coming out of our elected representatives in Washington. I have spent a great deal of time in many counties where the "mob" would, and do, literally die for the system we have here.

I do not share the contempt that you and others on the left of this forum have expressed for the electorate.

How did something that nobody on the forum has said get posted as a way to dismiss gay rights? Oh, I get it, the right is spinning. The Republican party has recognized that divisive efforts such as ballot initiatives on gay rights, and restrictions on voting that it claims are necessary to stop voter fraud, galvanize the base and particularly the religious right. They have used these devices to increase turnout and contributions.

The record that was before the Federal courts in the California initiative made it clear that animus was a pretty significant factor behind the fund-raising in Catholic and Mormon churches to fight gay marriage. Now it is unfortunate that the term marriage is used to define both a religious ritual and a celebration in a secular society that accords certain rights. And I would accept the arguments of the religious zealots more openly if they had not also fought civil unions. If civil unions afforded all of the rights of marriage in governance, we could all let religious zealots defend their bigotry with scripture. That is not the case.

The right does not have to agree that the courts have said that marriage is a fundamental right. However, to change the forum of discussion from the protection of fundamental rights, which is constitionally the role of the courts, to an argument that voter initiatives should allow the voting public to abrogate those rights, is a deeply flawed argument.

techno900, while Texas doesn't have an income tax, California certainly does, to include the majority of other states in the union. When you move to North Carolina, you will find out that you'll be paying state income tax too.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou cannot download files in this forum